Journal of Adolescence 2001, 24, 597609

doi:10.1006/jado.2000.0392, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Social identity in adolescence

MARK TARRANT, ADRIAN C. NORTH, MARK D. EDRIDGE, LAURA E. KIRK,
ELIZABETH A. SMITH AND ROISIN E. TURNER

Social identity theory (SIT) was used to investigate the effects of social categorization
on adolescents intergroup behaviour. One hundred and forty-nine male adolescents
aged 1415 years made comparisons between an ingroup and an outgroup along a
series of dimensions. Participants displayed consistent ingroup-favouring behaviour in
their ratings: the ingroup was associated to a greater extent than the outgroup with
positively valued dimensions, and to a lesser extent with negatively valued dimensions.
Those participants who demonstrated the most discrimination reported highest levels
of ingroup identification. The utility of applying predictions from SIT to the study of
adolescence is discussed.
# 2001 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

Introduction
A large number of studies indicate that adolescence is a period when group behaviour is very
apparent (e.g. Coleman, 1974; Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986; Palmonari et al., 1989, 1990),
and it is often suggested that peer group membership is beneficial for social development and
general feelings of self worth (Palmonari et al., 1990; Buhrmester, 1992; Heaven, 1994;
Cotterell, 1996). However, our understanding of exactly how peer groups provide such
benefits is still rather limited. The study reported in the present paper explored these
processes. Specifically, it examined how male adolescents involvement with their peer groups
helps them maintain a positive social identity.
Susceptibility to peer pressure is reported to peak between the ages of 1216 years
(Costanzo and Shaw, 1966; Coleman, 1974; Berndt, 1979; Steinberg and Silverberg, 1986).
At the same time the peer group is often perceived to be relatively impermeable, a perception
which helps convey status amongst the group members (Gavin and Furman, 1989).
Adolescents are also very aware of the differential social status conferred upon different
groups, and this knowledge can affect self-evaluation: categorization of the self as a member
of an unpopular or lower status group can be detrimental to feelings of self-worth and self-
esteem (Brown and Lohr, 1987; see Buhrmester, 1992; Denholm et al., 1992). However,
decisions about group status (or whatever is being evaluated) cannot be made in isolation
from other social groups: group status is a relative attribute and as such relies upon social
comparisons with other groups of higher or lower status than ones own (see Oakes et al.,
1994). The ability of the peer group to generate feelings of self-worth in its members thus
depends ultimately upon the positive evaluation of the group by the members in a
comparative context.
Relatively little is known about how adolescents use social comparisons to form positive
evaluations of their peer groups, and social identity theory (SIT: Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel and
Turner, 1979) might well be informative in this regard. SIT argues that a positive evaluation

Reprint requests and correspondence should be addressed to: Mark Tarrant, School of Psychology, University of
Leicester, U.K. (E-mail: mt37@leicester.ac.uk).

0140-1971/01/050597+13 $35
00/0 # 2001 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents
598 M. Tarrant et al.

of ones own group (the ingroup) can only be achieved through comparisons with groups of
which one is not a member (outgroups) along dimensions that are important for group
definition (Turner et al., 1979). Positive social identity and self-esteem are maintained
through comparisons that distinguish the ingroup from the outgroup and portray the ingroup
as somehow better off than the outgroup (see Tajfel, 1978).
Many of SITs assumptions have been based upon research conducted using the so-called
minimal group paradigm (MGP) procedure (e.g. Tajfel et al., 1971; Billig and Tajfel, 1973;
Howard and Rothbart, 1980). This approach involves dividing participants into two groups
on the basis of a supposedly unrelated task (such as a painting preference) and then asking
them to distribute resources to members of the ingroup and outgroup. However, the artificial
nature of this procedure has recently been criticised, and as such the MGP is likely to be of
limited heuristic value when attempting to understand real adolescent peer groups. For
example, a consistent finding of minimal group research has been that participants are
unwilling to discriminate along negative dimensions, and instead tend to distribute resources
equally among the ingroup and outgroup (Mummendey et al., 1992; Wenzel and
Mummendey, 1996; see also Singh et al., 1998). In contrast, when intergroup behaviour
has been investigated in more realistic social contexts participants have been shown to be
equally willing to discriminate along both positive and negative dimensions (Branscombe and
Wann, 1994; see also Reynolds et al., 2000). Such a discrepancy between findings of
MGP studies and studies conducted in more realistic settings has led some researchers to
conclude that the effects of social categorization on intergroup discrimination may only be
fully determined when the categorization is genuine and meaningful (see Hunter et al.,
1996).
A pivotal factor affecting intergroup discrimination appears to be the degree to which
group members value their group membership. When faced with a potential threat to
identity (e.g. such as in competitive situations) highly identified individuals are motivated to
protect that identity through increased discrimination because that identity makes an
important contribution to their self-concept (Mummendey et al., 1992; Branscombe and
Wann, 1994; see also Noel et al., 1995). Since adolescents are often strongly affiliated with
their peer groups (Gavin and Furman, 1989; Cotterell, 1996), and in some instances report
higher levels of group identification than adults (Liebkind, 1983), it is likely that SIT is
particularly well placed to explain adolescents group behaviour. Surprisingly however, the
theory is not often used explicitly to further our understanding of the adolescent process
(Gavin and Furman, 1989; Palmonari et al., 1989, 1990; see Kirchler et al., 1994; Cotterell,
1996 for exceptions). Indeed, research that has used adolescents as participants has tended
instead to describe findings in the context of general intergroup relations (e.g. Tajfel et al.,
1971; Hunter et al., 1996), although such research is of course valuable. It is possible that
adolescents in an intergroup context might strive to distinguish between their peer groups by
perceiving their own group more positively than an outgroup, and this differentiation might
be a valuable means by which adolescents secure social identity and self-esteem (cf. Sherif
et al., 1961).
The present study investigated the intergroup behaviour of real adolescent peer groups in
a meaningful intergroup context. As noted by Turner et al. (1979), positive ingroup
evaluations are achieved along dimensions that are relevant for group definition: there is
little or no benefit to be gained from social comparisons along dimensions that do not
contribute to social identity (see also Mummendey and Schreiber, 1983; Mummendey and
Simon, 1989). In adolescence, such group defining attributes might be multiple in number,
 Social identity in adolescence 599

since adolescents often display interest in a variety of activities, including sports, educational,
and musical activities (e.g. Garton and Pratt, 1987; Fitzgerald et al., 1995). To the extent
that participation in these activities in part is likely to be influenced by an adolescents peers
(Gavin and Furman, 1989; Sebald, 1989), it is possible that adolescents will use the
evaluative connotations associated with such activities as a means of distinguishing between
groups in order to maintain a positive social identity.
Since SIT has infrequently been used to predict adolescents group behaviour, a major
aim of the study was simply to confirm whether or not the study of adolescence
could be enhanced from a social identity perspective. In this sense, the present study
necessarily was somewhat exploratory. The available literature suggests that any positive
benefits of intergroup discrimination in adolescence might be especially prominent in male
peer groups, and so for the purposes of the present study we decided to focus on males only.
Most notably, previous research has indicated that compared to males, female adolescents are
less likely to rely on the support of the peer group as a whole, and instead focus on developing
intimate interpersonal relationships with one or two close friends (Savin-Williams,
1980; Youniss and Haynie, 1992). In contrast, males often regard their groups as more
cohesive and less permeable than do females, and have been shown to engage in higher
levels of aggressive and competitive behaviour with others (Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974,
1987; Gavin and Furman, 1989; Archer, 1992; Zarbatany and Pepper, 1996; Zarbatany et al.,
1996). On the basis of such research we expected that male adolescents in particular would
form strong group identifications, and thus would be especially motivated to protect and
enhance their identity by engaging in behaviour which secures a positive evaluation of the
ingroup. More simply, this research suggests that if SIT is to prove valuable to the study of
adolescence at all, it should competently predict the behaviour of male groups in the first
instance.
Following the methodologies employed in previous tests of social identity theory (e.g.
Palmonari et al., 1990; Hunter et al., 1996; Reynolds et al., 2000), we asked a sample of male
adolescents to make comparisons between an ingroup and an outgroup along a variety of
dimensions. In order to maintain a positive social identity, it was expected that the
participants would seek to distinguish between the groups along those dimensions that were
valuable for group definition. This discrimination should extend equally to stimuli that are
valued positively and negatively (cf. Reynolds et al., 2000), and further should be moderated
by the degree of valence of those stimuli, i.e. there should be most discrimination on
dimensions that are valued most positively and most negatively since these dimensions are
likely to make the greatest contribution to group definition (cf. Turner et al., 1979;
Mummendey and Simon, 1989). Finally, it was anticipated that the adolescents
discriminatory behaviour would be positively related to their degree of identification with
the ingroup, with those adolescents who engage in most discrimination reporting highest
levels of identification. These predictions can be summarized in the form of the following
hypotheses:

(1) Participants should associate the ingroup to a greater extent than the outgroup
with dimensions that are valued positively by their peer group;
(2) Participants should associate the ingroup to a lesser extent than the outgroup
with dimensions that are valued negatively by their peer group;
(3) The degree of ingroup favouritism should be equivalent for dimensions of positive
and negative valence;
600 M. Tarrant et al.

(4) There should be a positive relationship between the degree of desirability of

positively valued dimensions and the degree of ingroup favouritism along those
dimensions;
(5) There should be a negative relationship between the degree of desirability of
negatively valued dimensions and the degree of ingroup favouritism along those
dimensions;
(6) There should be a positive relationship between ingroup favouritism and
identification with the ingroup.

Method

Participants
One hundred and forty-nine year-10 pupils aged 1415 years (M=14?19, S.D.=0?40) took
part in the study. The participants were all male and attended a single-sex comprehensive
school situated in the suburbs of a city in the West Midlands region of the U.K.

Design and materials

A list of 26 statements about the activities and interests that adolescents might or might not
be involved with, or concerned with, was constructed for inclusion in the study. The list
comprised statements about social and passive pursuits, and included sporting interests/
activities, music and other media interests, and also general evaluative traits. The items were
chosen initially from a pool of 40 items that were derived from several sources, including
previous research into adolescents leisure behaviour and media use (e.g. Garton and Pratt,
1987; Larson et al., 1989; Van Wel, 1994; Fitzgerald et al., 1995). To ensure currency of the
music items, these items were selected following consultation with a local radio station.
Consultation with a small sample of adolescent associates of the researchers (n=10) reduced
this pool to a list of 26 items, 13 of which were considered to be of positive valence and 13 of
which were considered to be of negative valence (cf. Reynolds et al., 2000).
The first section of the response sheet addressed the intergroup evaluations of the
adolescents. Each statement was presented such that it could be used to describe either
members of the outgroup or members of the ingroup (e.g. they are good at football; they
do not enjoy reading school books). Participants were asked to indicate how well each
statement described the ingroup and the outgroup using eleven-point scales. On the scales,
0=this statement does not describe them/us very well, 10=this statement does describe
them/us very well, and 5=midway between the two.
The second section of the response sheet presented participants with the 26 items that
were used to construct the statements in Section 1. They were asked to estimate how
desirable or undesirable their group believed each interest or activity to be (e.g. how
desirable does your group believe it is to be good at swimming?; how desirable does your
peer group believe it is to listen to classical music?). On the scale, 0=very undesirable,
10=very desirable, and 5=midway between the two. To determine the participants
degree of confidence in these ratings, they were also asked to state how much they thought
the ingroup would agree with their ratings (0=completely disagree; 10=completely agree).
The final section of the response sheet addressed the level of identification with the
ingroup. As a broad measure of group identification, six statements were adapted from
 Social identity in adolescence 601

Luhtanen and Crockers (1992) collective self-esteem scale (see Table 3). In its original form,
this scale is intended to measure individuals collective self-esteem that is derived from their
social group memberships. It has been shown to have good validity and reliability (see also
Crocker and Luhtanen, 1990; Luhtanen and Crocker, 1992), and has been used successfully
in previous social identity research (e.g. Crocker and Luhtanen, 1990; Branscombe and
Wann, 1994; De Cremer and Oosterwegel, 2000). Participants in the present study were
required to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement on 11-
point scales (0=completely disagree, 10=completely agree). The scales were coded on
analysis so that a low score equalled low identification.

Procedure
Class sizes and timetable commitments dictated that the study took place over two days.
Instructions for each section of the response sheet were written on the response sheet and
these were verbally reinforced by one of the experimenters. The participants were firstly
asked to think about a group of 59 same-sex friends with whom they spent most of their
time. They were told that the group could comprise members from their own school, from a
different school, or a mix of both. They were then asked to think about a group of which they
were not members, but which was similar in composition to their own group. They then
completed the three sections of the response sheet. The ordering of the first two sections
(intergroup evaluation and group desirability ratings), and the order in which the groups
were rated (ingroupoutgroup/outgroupingroup), was counterbalanced across the testing
sessions. The sessions lasted between 35 and 40 minutes, and the participants were debriefed
after all sessions were completed.

Results

Valence manipulation check

Consultation with the small sample of adolescents prior to the study identified items of
positive and negative valence that were used to construct the materials for the main study. It
was firstly necessary to confirm the valence of these items. Since the scale midpoint of 5 was
the neutral point of the scale, any items that scored close to that midpoint for desirability
could not be considered to be either positively or negatively valued by the ingroup (see
Reynolds et al., 2000). Hence, items that scored significantly higher than the midpoint for
desirability could be considered positive, and any that scored significantly lower than the
midpoint could be considered negative. Related t-tests confirmed that 13 of the 26 items
were significantly higher than the midpoint, and 11 were significantly lower than the
midpoint (t values between 2?11 (always follow teachers instructions) and 30?82 (be
fun), df between 146 and 148, and p values between 0?036 and 50?001). Two items did not
differ significantly from the midpoint (be good at swimming and be good at rugby). The
significant items were therefore categorized as being positively or negatively valued
accordingly (see Tables 1 and 2), and the two non-significant items dropped from subsequent
analyses. A further check of item valence was performed by comparing the mean desirability
score of the positive and negative items. The mean of the positive items (M=7?49 (1?29))
was significantly higher than the mean of the negative items (M=2?62 (1?19): t
(142)=39?73, p50?001, Z2=0?962). Participants were also confident that the ingroup
would agree with their ratings of desirability: mean confidence rating=7?14 (1?68).
602 M. Tarrant et al.

Intergroup evaluations
To test the effect of stimulus valence on intergroup discrimination (Hypotheses 1 and 2) a
mean of the positively valued items and a mean of the negatively valued items were
calculated for the ingroup and outgroup and separately analysed with a 2 (section order)62
(group rating order)62 (target group) ANOVA, with repeated measures on the latter
variable. For ratings assigned to the positively valued items, there was a main effect of group
rating order: F (1, 141)=5?62, p=0?019, Z2=0?038; the participants made more favourable
ratings of the groups when the ingroup was rated before the outgroup than when the
outgroup was rated before the ingroup. There was a main effect of target group: F
(1, 141)=56?80, p50?001, Z2=0?287; the ingroup was rated more favourably than the
outgroup (M=7?25 (1?25) and M=5?92 (1?56), respectively). There was also an interaction
between group rating order and target group: F (1, 141)=6?22, p=0?014, Z2=0?042. Post
hoc t-tests indicated that this interaction was attributable to ratings assigned to the
outgroup: the outgroup was rated more favourably when it was rated after the ingroup than
when it was rated before the ingroup (M=6?37 (1?32) and M=5?45 (1?67), respectively: t
(143)=3?72, p50?001, Z2=0?088). A series of related t-tests was also conducted to compare
the ratings of the ingroup and outgroup on each individual comparison dimension. All of the
mean ratings were in the expected direction and eight were significant (Table 1).
For ratings assigned to the negatively valued items, there was a main effect of group rating
order: F (1, 136)=8?16, p=0?005, Z2=0?057; the participants evaluated the groups less
favourably when the outgroup was rated before the ingroup than vice versa. There was also a
main effect of target group: F (1, 136)=18?13, p50?001, Z2=0?118; the outgroup was rated

Table 1 Mean ratings assigned to ingroup and outgroup, and results of individual t-tests for
positive valence items (and S.D.)
Item Mean Mean for Mean for t df p
desirability ingroup outgroup
rating
Fun 8?81 (1?50) 8?61 (1?88) 5?07 (3?35) 10?83 146 50?001
Wear fashionable clothes 8?57 (1?67) 6?14 (4?06) 5?50 (3?73) 1?79 148 0?075
Enjoy watching comedy 7?89 (1?94) 8?17 (1?84) 6?53 (2?30) 7?44 148 50?001
programmes/films
Popular with others 7?87 (2?15) 7?72 (2?09) 5?75 (3?23) 5?98 148 50?001
Enjoy listening to pop 7?54 (2?57) 7?69 (2?65) 6?58 (2?66) 4?16 147 50?001
music
Good at computer/video 7?52 (2?34) 8?27 (1?91) 6?37 (2?81) 6?71 148 50?001
games
Enjoy watching action 7?46 (2?19) 6?79 (2?92) 6?38 (2?91) 1?41 148 0?160
films
Enjoy listening to dance 7?44 (2?73) 6?95 (2?93) 5?86 (2?96) 3?82 148 50?001
music
Intelligent 7?18 (2?28) 7?34 (2?11) 5?08 (3?12) 6?83 148 50?001
Good at football 7?05 (2?71) 6?98 (2?63) 6?56 (3?00) 1?02 148 0?309
Knowledgeable about 6?89 (2?69) 7?14 (2?71) 5?63 (2?97) 5?40 148 50?001
current music fashions
Enjoy watching music 6?77 (2?60) 6?36 (3?76) 5?82 (3?14) 1?62 147 0?108
TV programmes
Enjoy watching sports 6?43 (2?89) 5?88 (4?02) 5?60 (3?78) 0?67 148 0?506
programmes
 Social identity in adolescence 603

less favourably than the ingroup (M=3?68 (1?73) and M=3?11 (1?12), respectively).
Individual t-tests further confirmed this main effect. Six of these were significant and in the
expected direction (Table 2).

Ingroup favouritism
As is common in social identity research, the difference score between the rating of the
ingroup and the outgroup on each comparison dimension was firstly calculated to determine
the degree of ingroup favouritism (see Mummendey and Simon, 1989). For positively valued
items this consisted of subtracting the outgroup ratings from the ingroup ratings. For
negatively valued items this consisted of subtracting the ingroup ratings from the outgroup
ratings. All resulting positive scores thus represented ingroup favouritism, and all negative
scores represented outgroup favouritism. To test the effect of stimulus valence on ingroup
favouritism (Hypothesis 3), the mean ingroup favouritism score for the positively valued
items and the mean ingroup favouritism score for the negatively valued items were compared
with a 2 (section order)62 (group rating order)62 (stimulus valence) ANOVA, with
repeated measures on the latter variable. There was a main effect of group rating order: F
(1, 132)=4?55, p=0?035, Z2=0?033. The participants reported more ingroup favouritism
when the ingroup was rated after the outgroup, than when it was rated before the outgroup
(M=1?34 (1?89) and M=0?64 (1?35), respectively). There was a main effect of stimulus
valence: F (1, 132)=14?69, p50?001, Z2=0?100. Participants reported more ingroup
favouritism on the positively valued items than on the negatively valued items (M=1?33
(2?00) and M=0?57 (1?83), respectively). There was also an interaction between group
rating order and stimulus valence: F (1, 132)=4?43, p=0?037, Z2=0?032. Post hoc t-tests
indicated that for positively valued items, ingroup favouritism was higher when the ingroup

Table 2 Mean ratings assigned to ingroup and outgroup, and results of individual t-tests for
negative valence items (and S.D.)
Item Mean Mean for Mean for t df p
desirability ingroup outgroup
rating
Enjoy listening to country 0?83 (1?78) 0?52 (1?36) 1?82 (3?13) 5?32 148 50?001
and western music
Enjoy listening to 0?83 (1?94) 0?73 (2?07) 1?65 (3?22) 3?42 147 0?001
classical music
Boring 0?97 (2?18) 2?85 (3?51) 5?36 (3?72) 6?01 148 50?001
Enjoy listening to jazz 1?40 (2?09) 1?07 (2?32) 1?90 (2?83) 3?63 146 50?001
music
Enjoy reading school 2?13 (2?48) 4?38 (3?85) 5?05 (3?86) 2?19 148 0?030
books
Enjoy watching current 2?66 (2?41) 1?82 (2?38) 2?67 (3?25) 3?36 146 0?001
affairs programmes
Enjoy watching romantic 3?26 (2?66) 3?37 (2?90) 3?71 (3?08) 1?34 148 0?184
comedies
Enjoy listening to indie 3?69 (3?26) 5?34 (3?39) 4?88 (3?01) 1?46 148 0?148
music
Often go on family outings 4?26 (2?57) 3?88 (2?71) 3?77 (2?77) 0?39 146 0?699
Good at hockey 4?40 (2?65) 5?46 (2?74) 5?03 (2?74) 1?62 146 0?107
Always follow teachers 4?55 (2?60) 4?98 (2?67) 4?67 (3?27) 0?88 146 0?383
instructions
604 M. Tarrant et al.

was rated after the outgroup (M=1?77 (2?35)) than when it was rated before the outgroup
(M=0?92 (1?51)): t (143)=2?62, p=0?010, Z2=0?046. This effect was not apparent for
negatively valued items.
The above analysis included all items that differed significantly from the scale midpoint for
desirability. Whilst providing a broad indication of the adolescents intergroup discrimina-
tion, by definition this approach included items that varied somewhat in their degree of
valence. It was possible that the effects of stimulus valence on ingroup favouritism would be
different if the analysis included only those dimensions that were either very positively or very
negatively valued. The above ANOVA was therefore repeated using the mean ingroup
favouritism score for those items scoring above 7?5 for positive valence, and those scoring
below 2?5 for negative valence. This analysis revealed just one significant main effect of
group rating order: F (1, 139)=5?78, p=0?018, Z2=0?040. The participants reported greater
ingroup favouritism when the outgroup was rated before the ingroup than when it was rated
after the ingroup (M=1?34 (1.89) and M=0?64 (1?35), respectively). None of the effects
involving stimulus valence were significant.
Hypotheses 4 and 5 were tested by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient between
ratings of item desirability and scores for ingroup favouritism for positive and negative
dimensions separately. For positively valued items; r=0?56 (r2=0?31), n=13, and p=0?047:
the more desirable the item, the more ingroup favouritism was displayed for that item. For
negatively valued items; r=70?86 (r2=0?74), N=11, and p=0?001: the less desirable the
item, the more ingroup favouritism was displayed for that item. Since the earlier analyses had
revealed main effects of group rating order, correlations were also performed for each of the
two levels of this variable. For participants who evaluated the ingroup before the outgroup;
r=70?83 (r2=0?69), N=11, p=0?002 for negatively valued items; and r=0?41 (r2=0?17),
N=13, p=0?160 for positively valued items. For participants who evaluated the outgroup
before the ingroup; r=0?62 (r2=0?38), N=13, p=0?023 for positively valued items; and
r=70?80 (r2=0?64), N=11, p=0?003 for negatively valued items.

Group identification
The final analysis examined the relationship between ingroup favouritism and ingroup
identification. Table 3 displays the mean values assigned to the group identification items. All
values were above the scale midpoint of 5, and this indicates that the participants identified
with their peer group. Reliability analysis of the scale using Cronbachs alpha revealed an
acceptable degree of internal consistency (alpha=0?66), and so the analysis of group
identification effects was conducted using the mean of the five contributing scale items.

Table 3 Mean group identification (and S.D.)

Identification item Mean

I am glad to be a member of this group 8?61 (1?86)
I feel I do not have much to offer my group* 7?08 (2?60)
I regret that I belong to this group* 8?78 (2?09)
I am a worthy member of my group 7?86 (1?97)
In general, others respect my group 6?66 (2?45)
Belonging to this group is an important reflection of who I am 7?02 (2?46)
*Items reverse scored for analysis.
 Social identity in adolescence 605

Multiple regression analysis was performed to test the relationship between ingroup
favouritism and identity (entering the participants identity score as the dependent variable,
and ingroup favouritism, questionnaire section order, and group rating order as predictor
variables): R=0?41 (R2=0?17); F (3, 131)=8?78, and p50?001. The only significant
predictor of identity was ingroup favouritism (t (131)=1.50, p50.001). The other variables
did not make any additional contribution to the prediction of the participants identity.

Discussion

Whilst the benefits of peer group membership for social development are often stated, the
mechanism by which these benefits are realised is less frequently explored. This study has
highlighted one such mechanism. As predicted by social identity theory, the current
participants were able to maintain a sense of positive distinctiveness from their outgroups by
engaging in social comparisons with those groups, and they used their orientation towards a
variety of interests and activities to achieve this goal. For positively valued dimensions,
participants indicated that their own group was better off than the outgroup; they reported
that the ingroup was more fun, wore more fashionable clothes, and enjoyed comedy
programmes and so on more than the outgroup (see Table 1). The opposite effect was
observed for negatively valued dimensions: here the outgroup was reported to be worse off
than the ingroup. Amongst other things, the outgroup was assumed to enjoy listening to
country and western music more than the ingroup, to enjoy listening to classical music more
than the ingroup, and to be more boring than the ingroup (see Table 2).
It is of course possible that attributes other than those considered here would contribute
differentially to adolescents social identity in other samples (i.e. other peer groups might
value different defining criteria). However, that participants were willing to discriminate
along such a variety of interests/activities suggests that adolescents social groups are defined
by multiple attributes, including sporting abilities, TV, and other media preferences (cf.
Brake, 1985; Cotterell, 1996). The essential finding is that adolescents use those interests,
activities and attributes that are important to them in structuring their intergroup relations.
In short, what has been shown here is that adolescents use these valued dimensions in order
to distinguish between groups and therefore maintain a positive social identity.
The analysis of ingroup favouritism was conducted initially using all 24 of the interest and
activity items. This analysis revealed an ingroup favouritism effect which was more
pronounced along the positive dimensions than along the negative ones, a finding which
reflects that of much minimal group research (e.g. Mummendey et al., 1992). However,
when the analysis was repeated using only those items scoring above 7?5 for positive valence
and below 2?5 for negative valence (thus ensuring that all items were either very positively or
very negatively valued), ingroup favouritism extended equally along positive and negative
domains. This finding is consistent with the work of Reynolds et al. (2000), and similarly
suggests that group members equally discriminate between groups along positive and
negative dimensions when those dimensions are legitimate means of evaluating groups.
However, the present study also extends this work by indicating that it is not only a matter of
identifying positive and negative dimensions; the degree to which those dimensions are
valued positively or negatively is also important. The significant correlations that were
observed between ingroup favouritism and item desirability indicate that participants were
motivated to engage in increased discrimination along dimensions that were valued
606 M. Tarrant et al.

increasingly positive or increasingly negative (cf. Turner et al., 1979). Future research should
address this potentially important mediating variable in the social comparison process.
The study further reiterates the importance of studying behaviour in meaningful social
contexts. Participants in such contexts have a history of social relations, and consequently
are likely to identify with the social categorization to a greater degree than those in ad hoc
laboratory groups (cf. Hunter et al., 1996). As has been shown previously, highly identified
group members often display increased discrimination following a threat to identity as a
means of restoring that identity (Branscombe and Wann, 1994; Noel et al., 1995; Verkuyten,
1997). Tentative support to suggest that the current participants behaviour represented such
an identity-protecting mechanism comes from the significant main and interaction effects of
order of group comparisons that were obtained. The results showed that those participants
who evaluated the outgroup before the ingroup made less favourable ratings of the groups
and engaged in more ingroup favouritism than those who evaluated the ingroup first (see
similar findings by Reynolds et al., 2000). Whilst admittedly speculative, it is possible that
being made to focus initially on an outgroup heightened the salience of the comparative
context, and this in turn might have been perceived as a threat to social identity. The
increased discrimination that those participants displayed might have been a direct response
to that perceived threat.
One final point concerns the participants responses to the music items. Of the six styles of
music included in the study, notably three of these appeared in the bottom 25 per cent of the
desirability distribution (country and western, classical, and jazz music; see Table 2). This
finding is interesting and reiterates the central importance that many adolescents assign to
issues of musical taste (Fitzgerald et al., 1995; Kamptner, 1995). Previous research has
shown that adolescents hold firm stereotypes of different musical styles, and these stereotypes
seem to be particularly derogatory in the case of negatively valued music (North and
Hargreaves, 1999). They also form a valuable basis upon which to make social judgements
(Frith, 1983; Zillmann and Bhatia, 1989; see Zillmann and Gan, 1997). It is possible that
participants in the current study might have been particularly motivated to distance their
own group from these three styles in order to avoid the negative connotations associated
with them.
Some limitations of the study should be mentioned here. The regression analysis revealed
a positive relationship between ingroup favouritism and group identification, as expected.
Whilst the measure of identification was taken after the group comparison task, given the
correlational nature of the design it cannot be assumed that increased discrimination
elevated the participants social identity. Future research should address the causal
relationship between discrimination and identity in adolescent samples using more
experimental procedures (cf. Branscombe and Wann, 1994). Given our finding that the
participants behaviour varied according to the order in which they evaluated the ingroup
and the outgroup, this research could also be used to address how the salience of the
comparative context can mediate these processes.
Future research would also benefit from addressing the characteristics of adolescents
ingroups and outgroups in more detail than was attempted here. Whilst the participants
high levels of group identification indicate that the social categorization was real and
meaningful to them, it is possible that subtle differences in the defining characteristics of the
groups (e.g. preferred leisure activities; group size) could have mediated the relationship
between identification and motivation to protect the ingroup through discrimination
(cf. Palmonari et al., 1990). Similarly, we have addressed social identity processes from the
 Social identity in adolescence 607

perspective of the ingroup only: research would benefit from considering the impact of
discrimination on both parties within the intergroup setting (cf. Hunter et al., 1996).
Finally, since we addressed the intergroup behaviour of male adolescents only, the current
findings of course cannot be generalized to the group processes of females. As noted earlier,
previous research led us to expect that social identity effects would be particularly
pronounced in male groups. Given the magnitude of the effects reported here, the
application of SIT to the study of group processes of female adolescents should now be
considered a goal for investigative research.

Summary and conclusion

We noted at the start of this paper that group behaviour is particularly apparent during
adolescence, but that research has not often examined how adolescents maintain positive
evaluations of their peer groups. This study has firmly placed social comparison at the centre
of this process. Through social comparisons male adolescents are able to portray their own
group as better than a particular outgroup along certain dimensions, and at the same time
portray the outgroup as worse than their own group along other dimensions. Furthermore,
this behaviour is positively related to levels of identification with the peer group. Social
identity theory has offered valuable insight into adolescents group behaviour and it is the
authors contention that future research initiatives, when conducted within the framework of
this theory, will continue to enhance the fields understanding of this crucial period of
development.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to staff and students at Woodlands School, Coventry, U.K. for
agreeing to take part in this study. We are also grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their
comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

References
Archer, J. (1992). Childhood gender roles: social context and organization. In Childhood Social
Development: Contemporary Perspectives, H. McGurk (Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berndt, T. J. (1979). Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Developmental
Psychology, 15, 608616.
Billig, M. and Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity of intergroup behaviour. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 2752.
Brake, M. (1985). Comparative Youth Culture. London: Routledge.
Branscombe, N. R. and Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup
derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24,
641657.
Brown, B. B. and Lohr, M. J. (1987). Peer group affiliation and adolescent self-esteem: an integration of
ego-identity and symbolic interaction theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
4755.
Buhrmester, D. (1992). The developmental courses of sibling and peer relationships. In Childrens Sibling
Relationships: Developmental and Clinical Issues, F. Boer and J. Dunn (Eds). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
608 M. Tarrant et al.

Coleman, J. C. (1974). Relationships in Adolescence. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Costanzo, P. R. and Shaw, M. E. (1966). Conformity as a function of age level. Child Development, 37,
967975.
Cotterell, J. (1996). Social Networks and Social Influences in Adolescence. New York: Routledge.
Crocker, J. and Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 58, 6067.
De Cremer, D. and Oosterwegel, A. (2000). Collective self-esteem, personal self-esteem, and collective
efficacy in in-group and outgroup evaluations. Current Psychology, 18 326339.
Denholm, C., Horniblow, T. and Smalley, R. (1992). The times theyre still achanging: characteristics
of Tasmanian adolescent peer groups. Youth Studies Australia, 11, 1825.
Fitzgerald, M., Joseph, A. P., Hayes, M. and ORegan, M. (1995). Leisure activities of adolescent
schoolchildren. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 349358.
Frith, S. (1983). Sound Effects: Youth, Leisure, and The Politics Of Rock. London: Constable.
Garton, A. F. and Pratt, C. (1987). Participation and interest in leisure activities by adolescent
schoolchildren. Journal of Adolescence, 10, 341351.
Gavin, L. A. and Furman, W. (1989). Age differences in adolescents perceptions of their peer groups.
Developmental Psychology, 25, 827834.
Heaven, P. C. L. (1994). Contemporary Adolescence: a Social Psychological Approach. Melbourne,
Australia: Macmillan.
Howard, J. W. and Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorization and memory for in-group and out-group
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 301310.
Hunter, J. A., Platow, M. J., Howard, M. L. and Stringer, M. (1996). Social identity and intergroup
evaluative bias: realistic categories and domain specific self-esteem in a conflict setting. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 631647.
Kamptner, N. L. (1995). Treasured possessions and their meanings in adolescent males and females.
Adolescence, 30, 301318.
Kirchler, E., Palmonari, A. and Pombeni, M. L. (1994). Developmental tasks and adolescents
relationships with their peers and their family. In Adolescence and its Social Worlds, S. Jackson and
T. H. Rodriguez (Eds). Hove, U.K.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Larson, R., Kubey, R. and Colletti, J. (1989). Changing channels: early adolescent media choices and
shifting investments in family and friends. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18, 583599.
Liebkind, K. (1982). The Swedish-speaking Finns: a case study of ethnolinguistic identity. In
Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, H. Tajfel (Ed.). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press.
Luhtanen, R. and Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: self-evaluation of ones social
identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302318.
Maccoby, E. E. and Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Maccoby, E. E. and Jacklin, C. N. (1987). Gender segregation in childhood. In Advances in Child
Development and Behavior, H. W. Reese (Ed.). Vol 20. New York: Academic Press.
Mummendey, A. and Schreiber, H. -J. (1983). Better or just different? Positive social identity by
discrimination against, or by differentiation from outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology,
13, 389397.
Mummendey, A. and Simon, B. (1989). Better or different? III. The impact of importance of
comparison dimension and relative in-group size upon intergroup discrimination. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 28, 116.
Mummendey, A., Simon, B., Dietze, C., Gru nert, M., Kessler, S., Lettgen, S. and Schaferhoff, S. (1992).
Categorization is not enough: intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allocation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 125144.
Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L. and Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup membership status and
public negativity toward outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 127137.
North, A. C. and Hargreaves, D. J. (1999). Music and adolescent identity. Music Education Research, 1,
7592.
Oakes, P. J., Haslam, A. and Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and Social Reality. Oxford: Blackwell.
Palmonari, A., Pombeni, M. L. and Kirchler, E. (1989). Peer groups and evolution of the self-system in
adolescence. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 315.
 Social identity in adolescence 609

Palmonari, A., Pombeni, M. L. and Kirchler, E. (1990). Adolescents and their peer groups: a study on
the significanve of peers, social categorization processes and coping with developmental tasks.
Social Behaviour, 5, 3348.
Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C. and Haslam, S. A. (2000). When are we better than them and they worse
than us? A closer look at social discrimination in positive and negative domains. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 6480.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1980). Social interactions of adolescent females in natural groups. In Friendship
and Social Relations in Children, H. C. Foot, A. J. Chapman and J. R. Smith (Eds). Chicester, U.K.:
John Wiley.
Sebald, H. (1989). Adolescents peer orientation: changes in the support system during the past three
decades. Adolescence, 24, 937946.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R. and Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup Conflict and
Cooperation: the Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
Singh, R., Choo, W. M. and Poh, L. L. (1998). In-group bias and fair-mindedness as strategies of self-
presentation in intergroup perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 147162.
Steinberg, L. and Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child
Development, 57, 841851.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup
Relations. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The Social Psychology
of Intergroup Relations, W. G. Austin and S. Worschel (Eds). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, H., Flament, C., Billig, M. G. and Bundy, R. P. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup
behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149178.
Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J. and Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup
favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 187204.
Van Wel, F. (1994). A culture gap between the generations? Social influences on youth cultural style.
International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 4, 211228.
Verkuyten, M. (1997). Intergroup evaluation and self-esteem motivations: self-enhancement and self-
protection. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 115119.
Wenzel, M. and Mummendey, A. (1996). Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimination:
a normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group on positive and negative
attributes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 493507.
Youniss, J. and Haynie, D. L. (1992). Friendship in adolescence. Developmental and Behavioural
Pediatrics, 13, 5966.
Zarbatany, L. and Pepper, S. (1996). The role of the group in peer group entry. Social Development, 5,
251260.
Zarbatany, L., Van Brunschot, M., Meadows, K. and Pepper, S. (1996). Effects of friendship and gender
on peer group entry. Child Development, 67, 22872300.
Zillmann, D. and Bhatia, A. (1989). Effects of associating with musical genres on heterosexual
attraction. Communication Research, 16, 263288.
Zillmann, D. and Gan, S. (1997). Musical taste in adolescence. In The Social Psychology of Music, D. J.
Hargreaves and A. C. North (Eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press.